5 ms·

There's nothing in Mozilla's mission statement[0][1] incompatible with Eich's personal beliefs. > You personally, the guy typing the letters into this box, wha

by hoopd 11y ago

There's nothing in Mozilla's mission statement[0][1] incompatible with Eich's personal beliefs. > You personally, the guy typing the letters into this box, what do you think the outcome of such a "negotiation" would be if it were as successful as humanly possible? I think it would have been adults acting like adults and accepting you don't have to agree with somebody in order to work with them. Eich already demonstrated he was willing and able to do just that. From 1998 when Eich co-founded Mozilla to 2005, after seven years as the chief technologist and member of the board, how did he misuse his power? From 2005 to 2014 while Eich was Mozilla's CTO, was Mozilla hostile to the LGBT community? How many discrimination lawsuits did Mozilla have to settle because of him? Eich spent 16 years at or near the top of the Mozilla, yet there's no pattern of discrimination, not only is there no pattern I've been unable to find any evidence whatsoever that he was unable to set personal differences aside. Worse yet for your case is that Eich helped build a very inclusive company where LGBT persons have always been, from what I can tell, quite welcome. [0] - https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ [1] - https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/

Karunamon 11y ago
The question here is not "Did Eich's presence cause an exclusionary atmosphere at Mozilla?", which is what you appear to be arguing. As you mention, the answer is no. The question is actually "Is it appropriate for someone who takes active steps to treat some people as undeserving of basic rights[1] to take the ultimate leadership role in a diversity focused company?" That answer is no. Going back to your "negotiation" statement - he was given that option! The pichforks didn't truly come out until the number of his non-answers on the issue. Someone saying "we support diversity" doesn't sound right when that can be instantly rebutted with "Then why is your company run by someone who donated against LGBTs?" It looks bad for Mozilla, and there's no good answer for that question - really! Eich had three valid options from that point on: * He could repudiate the donation and this would have evaporated overnight. Those views were apparently important enough to him to prevent such an option. * He could not do so and stay, and Mozilla would suffer due to the volume of people who stated they would not work for or with someone who did what he did. Two things to keep in mind: People are/were angry at Eich for his actions, not his thoughts. His thoughts are not conclusively knowable, his actions are. Also remember that Prop 8 passed, and it took another 6 years for equal marriage rights to clear in California as a result - were I living in California during that time, I'd have felt pretty scandalized too, moreso if I were actually working for Mozilla at the time. * He could not do so and move on. This was the chosen option. [1]: http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/ http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-...
- hoopd 11y ago
  > The question is actually "Is it appropriate for someone who takes active steps to treat some people as undeserving of basic rights[1] to take the ultimate leadership role in a diversity focused company?" First, it's not a "diversity focused company" it's a company focused on building a Free and Open internet. Being socially inclusive in their internal culture is secondary. Moreover Eich's definition of inclusivity was perfectly in line with Mozilla's which is that not only are sexual orientations protected but so are religious views as long as the person interacts constructively with the community. He had his personal religious views and by all accounts he didn't let them prevent him from interacting constructively with the Mozilla community. > "...and Mozilla would suffer due to the volume of people who stated they would not work for or with someone who did what he did." It was less than 10 employees who asked him to step down, none of them were his direct reports, how many threatened to leave? There's absolutely no reason that he should be forced to apologize for his donation. I don't agree with the donation but I'm an American and I think it's extremely dangerous to go down the road of persecuting others for taking part in political campaigns, etc. I agree with you that Eich's actions are to a large extent known, so I again challenge you to provide me with a single shred of evidence that in his 16 years at Mozilla Eich treated even one member of the LGBT community unfairly from his position of power.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    I again challenge you to provide me with a single shred of evidence that in his 16 years at Mozilla Eich treated even one member of the LGBT community unfairly from his position of power. But again, we're not worried about Eich's impact on Mozilla, which was, as you say, positive. I don't think he did abuse his power or hurt anybody by his actions at Mozilla - at least not from the 90's to 08 which is when the first inkling of his views became public. More importantly, Mozilla does not exist in a vacuum - and in my mind, accepting this without protest equates to putting the success of a single company over the rights of untold numbers of people. Let me try this another way. Put yourself in the shoes of an LGBT working there. Your boss appears to be a nice guy, very professional, a technical genius. He's up for promotion to C-E-frickin-O! ..and then you find out via the outrage machine that he's donating to groups whose /one and only/ reason for existing is to marginalize you. Imagine how that would hit you. What do you think that will do to your working relationship with that person? Would you be proud to say you work at Mozilla after he becomes basically the guy running it? "Mozilla now run by a bigot" - and worse, that wouldn't even be an exaggeration! Your boss apparently isn't such a nice guy after all. Does it make at least little more sense now? This role playing exercise aside. I really, truly, do not understand how you (the collective HN readers "you") can on one hand be upset at the community for expressing their displeasure at Mozilla (and sure, there were idiots that took it too far, but the consensus was loud and clear), and on the other hand, be perfectly okay with Eich reaching into his own wallet to help marginalize people (and having looked at the website again, linking Mozilla's name to it!![1]). This view is fundamentally alien to me - I'm a geek, but at the end of the day, the people are more important than the computers. I cannot see the justice in placing Mozilla's well being over millions of people's basic rights. [1]: http://projects.latimes.com/prop8/donation/8930/ http://projects.latimes.com/prop8/donation/8930/

by hoopd 11y ago

Karunamon 11y ago

The question here is not "Did Eich's presence cause an exclusionary atmosphere at Mozilla?", which is what you appear to be arguing. As you mention, the answer is no. The question is actually "Is it appropriate for someone who takes active steps to treat some people as undeserving of basic rights[1] to take the ultimate leadership role in a diversity focused company?" That answer is no. Going back to your "negotiation" statement - he was given that option! The pichforks didn't truly come out until the number of his non-answers on the issue. Someone saying "we support diversity" doesn't sound right when that can be instantly rebutted with "Then why is your company run by someone who donated against LGBTs?" It looks bad for Mozilla, and there's no good answer for that question - really! Eich had three valid options from that point on: * He could repudiate the donation and this would have evaporated overnight. Those views were apparently important enough to him to prevent such an option. * He could not do so and stay, and Mozilla would suffer due to the volume of people who stated they would not work for or with someone who did what he did. Two things to keep in mind: People are/were angry at Eich for his actions, not his thoughts. His thoughts are not conclusively knowable, his actions are. Also remember that Prop 8 passed, and it took another 6 years for equal marriage rights to clear in California as a result - were I living in California during that time, I'd have felt pretty scandalized too, moreso if I were actually working for Mozilla at the time. * He could not do so and move on. This was the chosen option. [1]: http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/ http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-...

hoopd 11y ago
> The question is actually "Is it appropriate for someone who takes active steps to treat some people as undeserving of basic rights[1] to take the ultimate leadership role in a diversity focused company?" First, it's not a "diversity focused company" it's a company focused on building a Free and Open internet. Being socially inclusive in their internal culture is secondary. Moreover Eich's definition of inclusivity was perfectly in line with Mozilla's which is that not only are sexual orientations protected but so are religious views as long as the person interacts constructively with the community. He had his personal religious views and by all accounts he didn't let them prevent him from interacting constructively with the Mozilla community. > "...and Mozilla would suffer due to the volume of people who stated they would not work for or with someone who did what he did." It was less than 10 employees who asked him to step down, none of them were his direct reports, how many threatened to leave? There's absolutely no reason that he should be forced to apologize for his donation. I don't agree with the donation but I'm an American and I think it's extremely dangerous to go down the road of persecuting others for taking part in political campaigns, etc. I agree with you that Eich's actions are to a large extent known, so I again challenge you to provide me with a single shred of evidence that in his 16 years at Mozilla Eich treated even one member of the LGBT community unfairly from his position of power.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  I again challenge you to provide me with a single shred of evidence that in his 16 years at Mozilla Eich treated even one member of the LGBT community unfairly from his position of power. But again, we're not worried about Eich's impact on Mozilla, which was, as you say, positive. I don't think he did abuse his power or hurt anybody by his actions at Mozilla - at least not from the 90's to 08 which is when the first inkling of his views became public. More importantly, Mozilla does not exist in a vacuum - and in my mind, accepting this without protest equates to putting the success of a single company over the rights of untold numbers of people. Let me try this another way. Put yourself in the shoes of an LGBT working there. Your boss appears to be a nice guy, very professional, a technical genius. He's up for promotion to C-E-frickin-O! ..and then you find out via the outrage machine that he's donating to groups whose /one and only/ reason for existing is to marginalize you. Imagine how that would hit you. What do you think that will do to your working relationship with that person? Would you be proud to say you work at Mozilla after he becomes basically the guy running it? "Mozilla now run by a bigot" - and worse, that wouldn't even be an exaggeration! Your boss apparently isn't such a nice guy after all. Does it make at least little more sense now? This role playing exercise aside. I really, truly, do not understand how you (the collective HN readers "you") can on one hand be upset at the community for expressing their displeasure at Mozilla (and sure, there were idiots that took it too far, but the consensus was loud and clear), and on the other hand, be perfectly okay with Eich reaching into his own wallet to help marginalize people (and having looked at the website again, linking Mozilla's name to it!![1]). This view is fundamentally alien to me - I'm a geek, but at the end of the day, the people are more important than the computers. I cannot see the justice in placing Mozilla's well being over millions of people's basic rights. [1]: http://projects.latimes.com/prop8/donation/8930/ http://projects.latimes.com/prop8/donation/8930/